The Ethics of Giving: Charity Abroad vs. Local Needs

An advice column is urging individuals to reconsider the strict pursuit of charitable optimization, suggesting that a more diversified approach to giving may better align with personal values and moral integrity.

The column, originally published in September 2024, addresses a common dilemma: whether to donate to highly effective international charities that can alleviate extreme poverty, or to assist individuals experiencing homelessness in one's own community.

The writer grapples with the feeling of being "callous" when ignoring requests for money from people on the street, despite the conviction that donating abroad yields greater impact. This internal conflict highlights a tension between the strategy of optimization—maximizing good per dollar—and the more immediate moral impulse to help those in one's immediate vicinity.

Optimization, while valuable in many contexts, can become problematic when applied too rigidly to complex human needs. The advice column posits that not all forms of help can be measured by a single metric, drawing on insights from Jewish tradition. Ancient rabbis, for instance, recognized that beyond basic survival, the impoverished have psychological needs, including the dignity that comes from being able to give charity themselves and the alleviation of shame.

Comparing the impact of preventing malaria with alleviating depression, or saving a child's life versus an adult's, is akin to comparing apples and oranges. These are incommensurable values that cannot be easily ranked or optimized without oversimplifying the problem. Attempting to do so, the column argues, can lead to ignoring the immediate suffering of those encountered daily, which can damage one's moral conscience.

Some proponents of effective altruism acknowledge this issue, suggesting a division of charitable funds. This approach, sometimes termed "purchasing fuzzies and utilons separately," involves dedicating a portion of resources to causes that provide emotional satisfaction (fuzzies) and another, larger portion to the most cost-effective global initiatives (utilons). Volunteering locally can serve the purpose of "fuzzies," validated by more impactful global giving.

The concept of "integrity," as discussed by philosopher Bernard Williams, is also central to this argument. Integrity refers to a person's wholeness, their ability to act in accordance with their deeply held commitments and values. Forcing an individual to ignore the suffering of someone directly encountered, simply because it's not the "most optimal" use of resources, can alienate them from a core part of themselves, thereby compromising their moral wholeness.

Instead of overriding the impulse to help those in need locally, the advice is to honor it. A diversified giving portfolio could include a small amount of cash or gift cards for immediate encounters, a larger sum for a reputable local or national charity, and a separate allocation for a highly effective international charity. While a perfect mathematical formula for optimal allocation may not exist, this approach allows for a fuller expression of one's desire to help across different dimensions of need and personal commitment.